|
Post by goods on Jul 17, 2008 13:25:07 GMT -5
So Shey is for incest when it is a gay couple, but not a hetro couple? Why are you Hetero-phobic Shey? And what if the woman had had a hysterectomy? Would it be ok then?
|
|
|
Post by sheyd on Jul 17, 2008 13:49:07 GMT -5
No - my point was that gay brothers should also not be together. Genetics is what it is - siblings are too closely related. Plus, family ties are important, and a very different relationship than a romantic one. Being hetero myself, it would be tough for me to be against heteros, wouldn't it? Or at the very least, self-hating?
|
|
|
Post by rocko on Jul 17, 2008 13:50:16 GMT -5
damn them heteros...can't stand'm me self.
|
|
|
Post by sheyd on Jul 17, 2008 13:52:15 GMT -5
Rocko... does that mean you might be interested in a non-hetero relationship with a like-minded person? (wink wink) Cause we hetero-haters must stick together!
|
|
|
Post by rocko on Jul 17, 2008 14:05:07 GMT -5
lol. sure why not.
|
|
|
Post by goods on Jul 17, 2008 15:18:14 GMT -5
Seriously.... say two siblings were separated at birth, adopted by different families, met, fell in love. You are saying that they should not be allowed to?!!! Who are you to define love like that Shey?
|
|
|
Post by Phyxius on Jul 17, 2008 16:35:52 GMT -5
Seriously.... say two siblings were separated at birth, adopted by different families, met, fell in love. You are saying that they should not be allowed to?!!! Who are you to define love like that Shey? She doesn't have to. The law already does that quite nicely - and it doesn't give a hoot about the whole "separated at birth" thing, either. You seem awfully fixated on this, though. Is there something you're not telling us?
|
|
|
Post by goods on Jul 18, 2008 8:45:23 GMT -5
The point I seem to be clumsily getting at is the double standard. One it's ok for Society/Government to deny two consenting adults a relationship because they are siblings or first cousins. But when it comes to a Homosexual relationship Society and Government is told that it is none of their business, in fact that if they do not accept it, they are backward and phobic. For centuries Royal families intermarried to keep the bloodlines pure. It was perfectly acceptable not so long ago.
Obviously you have not seen pictures of my sisters.
|
|
|
Post by Phyxius on Jul 18, 2008 9:00:32 GMT -5
Obviously you have not seen pictures of my sisters. Don't need to. Some things are just not done. You might want to get therapy for that, though...
|
|
|
Post by sheyd on Jul 18, 2008 9:25:49 GMT -5
For centuries Royal families intermarried to keep the bloodlines pure. It was perfectly acceptable not so long ago. Yes, and it was REALLY practiced in ancient Egypt. Which is why they KNOW it creates genetic problems and poor health. With the exception of Ancient Egypt, though, it was second cousins - rarely closer. Even that close of bloodlines had genetic difficulties eventually. There is a biological reason for banning incest - not to mention that allowing it could create a situation that just BEGS for molestation. Big bro or big sis is in too much of a power situation to be allowed sexual access. That isn't to say there isn't mutual situations (like the one in the story) but the potential for abuse is too high. One it's ok for Society/Government to deny two consenting adults a relationship because they are siblings or first cousins. But when it comes to a Homosexual relationship Society and Government is told that it is none of their business, in fact that if they do not accept it, they are backward and phobic. Yes. Exactly. Because the first one is between people who have access to each other as CHILDREN, and who are closely related genetically. The other is between consenting ADULTS who can't possibly create children. Obviously you have not seen pictures of my sisters. I have, and they are beautiful and close in age to you. If anything like that happened, though, it would not be our business, and wouldn't really be relevant to the argument unless YOU wanted to disclose and use it as an argument. Phyx, you shouldn't take away from the main argument by directing digs at an opponent. Whether he has or hasn't had any of that type of experimentation with his sisters isn't really the point - whether it is acceptable or not is what is being debated.
|
|
|
Post by Bobfromacctg on Jul 18, 2008 9:30:17 GMT -5
The point I seem to be clumsily getting at is the double standard. I'm right there with you and your illustration is a good one. Of course they will reject your notion - they have to - but it does show the inconsistency in their opinions. As you said, who are we to say who can love each other and who can not. The very same thing that is said to enable the gay lobby to get their desires made "normal". Also, why is polygamy illegal? They are all adults, why shouldn't they marry or using their argument "Buts it their body - the government should not tell me what I can and can not do with my body"... Its a very valid point. But then...I'm the judgemental one...I forgot that..
|
|
|
Post by Mel (cherry) on Jul 18, 2008 9:32:21 GMT -5
Hey they don't like when you point out inconsistencies.
|
|
|
Post by sheyd on Jul 18, 2008 9:52:29 GMT -5
I have no problem with polygamy myself! So not sure where there is inconsistencies? One is a genetic issue, and one of possible abuse, the other is consenting adults. Frankly, I have absolutely no desire to find out what is going on in other peoples' bedrooms, as long as it is consentual. I don't like sado-masochism either, but again, not my business, as long as it is consentual!
|
|
|
Post by goods on Jul 18, 2008 10:54:27 GMT -5
22 yr old woman, has hysterectomy.. finds out OB/GYN is long lost brother, they jump in the sack and decide to live happily ever after EXCEPT society says NO! and condemns them to a life of "what ifs" and sadness.
|
|
|
Post by sheyd on Jul 18, 2008 11:05:08 GMT -5
www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/europe/01/11/twins.married/index.htmlIt happened - except the chance of fertilization still existed. (I had to look it up - I knew I had heard something of this kind of thing). It is tragic the way it happened for them. IF it happened that way - didn't know they were sibs AND there was no chance of conception - I would have no problem with it, to be honest. It is when they grow up together and when there is chance of conception that I have issues. The people in the article started their relationship AS they were growing up together, AND are otherwise fertile - it was not rape, but would have been wrong.
|
|